4.6 Article

Evaluation of Transient Elastography, Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse Imaging (ARFI), and Enhanced Liver Function (ELF) Score for Detection of Fibrosis in Morbidly Obese Patients

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141649

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Germany [FKZ: 01EO1001, K7-40]
  2. German Research Foundation (DFG)
  3. University of Leipzig within the program of Open Access Publishing
  4. Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics GmbH

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Liver fibrosis induced by non-alcoholic fatty liver disease causes peri-interventional complications in morbidly obese patients. We determined the performance of transient elastography (TE), acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) imaging, and enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) score for fibrosis detection in bariatric patients. Patients and Methods 41 patients (median BMI 47 kg/m(2)) underwent 14-day low-energy diets to improve conditions prior to bariatric surgery (day 0). TE (M and XL probe), ARFI, and ELF score were performed on days -15 and -1 and compared with intraoperative liver biopsies (NAS staging). Results Valid TE and ARFI results at day -15 and -1 were obtained in 49%/88% and 51%/90% of cases, respectively. High skin-to-liver-capsule distances correlated with invalid TE measurements. Fibrosis of liver biopsies was staged as F1 and F3 in n = 40 and n = 1 individuals. However, variations (median/range at d-15/-1) of TE (4.6/2.6-75 and 6.7/2.9-21.3 kPa) and ARFI (2.1/0.7-3.7 and 2.0/0.7-3.8 m/s) were high and associated with overestimation of fibrosis. The ELF score correctly classified 87.5% of patients. Conclusion In bariatric patients, performance of TE and ARFI was poor and did not improve after weight loss. The ELF score correctly classified the majority of cases and should be further evaluated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available